Bishop Edwin Barnes puts forward what may be the simplest of all the options for a structural solution for orthodox Anglicans to keep everybody happy and not frighten the liberal ascendancy
Clergy and others have been responding generously to my request for help in making proposals on the Governance of our future province. Some proposals have been modest, others more sweeping; but none has struck me as so comprehensive and simple as that from Fr Lawrence MacLean, our man in Florence. Since what he proposed needs a little fleshing out and explanation, please do not hold against him anything that follows; the brilliant idea is his, the pedestrian details are mine. Whenever we try to explain a ”˜free province’ or a ”˜third province’ to those in the liberal ascendancy, difficulties are at once asserted. You cannot have overlapping jurisdictions in the Church of England, they will say. The diocesan bishop will never relinquish any of his power to another bishop, they insist.
Parallel episcopates
Well, there is a diocese of the Church of England where parallel episcopates not only exist, but are celebrated. It is called the Diocese of Europe. The bishop of the Lusitanian Church, based in Lisbon, introduces himself saying, ”˜I am the Bishop of Portugal’. We are in full communion with him and his church. Similar rather more realistic churches exist elsewhere through Europe. Who can fail to know that we are in communion through the Porvoo agreement with most of the Scandinavian Lutheran churches? They have bishops with ancient sees, and seem to find no difficulty in surviving, despite the existence of our Bishop in Europe. More remarkable still, there is the Convocation of American Churches in Europe. Under their bishop, Pierre Welté Whalon, they are fully a part of TEC (the Episcopal Church, whose presiding bishop is the Most Revd Dr Katharine efferts Schori). The Convocation, it says, is ”˜a multinational, multiracial, multilingual and multicultural communion within the European Union ”“ a mirror image of the multinational, multiracial, multilingual and multicultural Episcopal Church in the USA.’ No doubt Bishop Geoffrey Rowell, Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe, would claim something similar for his diocese ”“ though in this case relating to England and the Archbishop of Canterbury. So within the Anglican Communion there is at least one diocese which is perfectly happy to co-exist with another Anglican diocese.
Boundaries
Then what about the cure of souls? ”˜Receive this cure, which is both mine and yours’ says the diocesan on licensing a new priest in charge. It sounds grand, and harks back to the time of the first Elizabeth, when there were penalties for non-attendance at church, and the priest claimed the right to enter any home in his parish. The bishops might not yet realize it, but it is not like this any more. In theory, England is a place where every person has a parish church and a pari sh priest to care for him, and every parish church is bound to a diocese. Yet many bishops happily encourage clergy to ”˜plant’ churches in neighbouring parishes, whether the priest there is content for this to happen or not. So if clergy are forced to concede the rights of other priests to minister across parish boundaries, surely in justice the same should be the case for bishops? The whole notion of parish boundaries is fast disappearing. Why then such a fuss about diocesan boundaries?
The solution
So, what of the diminution of the power of a diocesan bishop when another bishop cares for priests in his diocese? The greater part of that power was conceded with the Act of Synod; the Provincial Episcopal Visitor has the pastoral and sacramental care of those who want it. What remains is mere legalism; and in any case, when bishops start claiming power over their clergy we cannot help remembering Jesus’ retort to Pilate, ”˜You would have no power unless it had been given to you.’ In short, there is a perfect solution for a free diocese already in existence. It is for parishes in England which have asked for extended episcopal care to have that care administered by the Bishop in Europe. The Diocese in Europe would become an entirely orthodox diocese; and, without moving any buildings or altering any boundaries, liberal clergy and congregations in Europe could ask for the oversight of the Bishop of the Convocation of American Churches. Instead of having to find friendly African or Southern Cone bishops to care for them, orthodox parishes and dioceses in the USA could associate themselves with the Bishop in Europe. He, no doubt, would make provision for them by appointing if necessary bishops who would work with him in caring for such congregations. He might also licence the English PEVs as Suffragans of Europe; and what a happy solution it would be if the Bishop of Fulham were to be reunited with the bishop whose former title was Bishop of Fulham and Gibraltar. Such a development would fit our Anglican ethos ideally. Reformation, not revolution. No great new organization; the Diocese of Europe already has its seats on General Synod, and its relations with the other English dioceses, besides being on good terms with Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox throughout Europe. Best of all, the enlarged diocese would be understood perfectly by the Catholic hierarchy in Rome. Our talk of ”˜free provinces’ has frightened our fellow Anglicans at home, who think a province too grandiose, and has confused our Catholic friends on the continent. A diocese is a better solution; since a diocese constitutes, for the Catholic Church, a ”˜particular church’. Such a church would be capable of entering into conversations with other churches, whilst retaining the highest possible degree of fellowship with others in the Anglican Communion. In mathematics, the simplest solution is called an elegant solution. Dare we hope that our Church will think this an elegant solution to the present predicament?
An earlier article of mine in New Directions, about dual membership of churches, has drawn a good deal of comment, most of it favourable. It would be a great help to those of us working on the question of Governance, if readers could send suggestions by email or letter to me. Little think-tanks can dream up great solutions; but any solutions have to be workable.
–From the July 2007 edition of New Directions
The difference between the Diocese in Europe and the rest of the Church of England is that in Europe we have chaplaincies rather than parishes. A parish is defined by an area of land, and the vicar or rector is meant to administer to everybody in that land. A chaplaincy is associated with a specific group of people rather than an area of land, and exists outside the parish system. The chaplain is intended to assist the local parish by ministering to a set of people with a particular need. For example, a university chaplain specifically serves the students and staff at a university, even though the university will exist within the parish. In the diocese in Europe, the chaplain serves the English speaking people within that city (and its neighbourhood), and is meant to recognise and cooperate with the local churches (or evangelise amongst the natives so we don’t steal their flocks). It is meant to reach out to a part of the population that the native churches don’t serve, not to implement a new set of parishes in competition with the Roman, Lutheran or whatever churches. That’s how the Diocese in Europe chaplaincies in Spain and Portugal can overlap with the parishes of the local Anglican churches – only one of them claims jurisdiction over the land. It is difficult to see how parish churches in England can join the diocese in Europe’s chaplaincy system. And it’s also difficult to see who the new chaplaincies within England would be targeted to serve. At least that’s the argument which I imagine the canon-fundamentalists would put forward against this.
Also, I imagine that the large proportion of liberal churches in the diocese of Europe would be reluctant to leave the church of England. For example, here in Germany, which I know best, we have seven C of E chaplaincies (and 3 TEC congregations with a few missions); of which the majority are moderately to strongly re-appraiser; I guess that only Leipzig and Düsseldorf (strongly Evangelical), and possibly Bonn/Cologne (Anglo-Catholic), would even consider accepting this plan. Certainly I would be surprised if the archdeacon in Copenhagen would accept it. The other chaplaincies would not accept this, and probably not even understand that the problem it is trying to solve exists. Matters are further complicated by the fact that the deanery synod is incorporated into a body which includes the Episcopal churches, as well as six of the church of England churches (excluding Leipzig, which has recently withdrawn), so there is less of a blur between TEC and the church of England. I don’t know what proportion of the Diocese in Europe as a whole is reasserter and what proportion is reappraiser, but I suspect that few would be in favour of this realignment (or accept the need for it); and if the diocese is not in favour, I can’t see it happening. The third province is about women priests, not general orthodoxy, so not all of the evangelicals in Europe would want to support the plan.
With respect to #1, obviously the two matters are related, but (as I mentioned) the free province idea is aiming to ensure an ecclesiological structure without women Bishops (or women’s ordination), to ensure apostolic succession and sacramental assurance; not the split we are seeing in the United states. The Church of England is not yet lost to apostasy, so we have to stay and continue to fight. Taking us out of communion with the heretics is not the issue; the third province movement (at the moment) is just about trying to carve out a safe place within the church for itself, where it can be sure that the sacraments remain valid.
I don’t think that the above will be accepted without some considerable modification. Which is a pity, because I am convinced that the free province/free diocese proposal is the best way forward for the Church of England; if only we can find a way to sell it to the moderates.
Very interesting indeed. But as a former member of the chaplaincy in Budapest, and former attender of those in the Paris region, I echoe the concerns of #2. The “chaplaincy” system is quite different from the “paris
(Blah, I have a terrible internet connection, and apparently my comment above got cut off.)
Very interesting indeed. But as a former member of the chaplaincy in Budapest, and former attender of those in the Paris region, I echo the concerns of #2. The %
(Third try: if someone wants to delete those other two, feel free.)
Very interesting indeed. But as a former member of the chaplaincy in Budapest, and former attender of those in the Paris region, I echo the concerns of #2. The “chaplaincy” system i
Wow, Sam. The connection isn’t too good in Lexington, eh?
Of course, aren’t most Anglican parishes now only de jure at best, and de facto chaplaincies? That is certainly the case in the United States, and I have plenty of friends and acquaintances in England, Ireland and Canada who drive right past their parish church on the way to their Anglican or Episcopal “chapel”.
Todd,
Practically, yes. Legally, no. I guess most people don’t even know which parish they are in.
I hardly remember what I was going to say–something about the chaplaincies I knew being relatively conservative, yet isolated (in mostly Catholic countries) from Anglican arguments, and so neither obviously “reasserter” or “reappraiser.”
Also, I remember hearing a rumor that the Diocese in Europe was considering changing to parishes–the membership was largely not transitional but long-term or permanent residents (quite different from a college). That may have been tossed out.
Todd I think your point is right: are our parishes effectively any different from chaplaincies in a country without established religion? Once you have more than one Christian bishop (RC, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist) claiming jurisdiction in the same place, you are definitively past the ancient sense of what a bishop is.
The question is, does our praxis of the episcopacy call into question the very idea of the parish system. (In TEC-speak ‘twould be easy to make such an argument: “this is the way we practice it, therefore it is right and we should change our formal ecclesiology.”) But the parish system does give a nod to the importance of place, the fact that Christianity is about more than universal ideas but the manifestation of the Kingdom in space and time. So to me the moment you start saying that non-geographical bishops are the norm is also (perhaps I speculate too far) the moment when you say that we can do away with worship spaces and sacraments, and that we can just be people who read books wherever we want.
In response to Archbishop Akinola’s assertion that the Convocation in Europe is a good precedent for his new jurisdiction in America, I wrote an essay which can be found at http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/europemodel.html
The Archbishop of Canterbury commended it to the Anglican Communion Office as a good analysis of the situation. There are all kinds of problems associated with these proposals. The most important has to do with relationships. In Europe we are not an Anglican province or jurisdiction. Spain and Portugal have significant friction with the Diocese in Europe, as a result. Also, the notion that “re-appraisers” and “re-asserters” in Europe might be happier with one bishop than the other is quite wrong-headed. Non-geographical jurisdictions are purely exceptional, and should not form the basis for future experiments that seek permanent solutions. Those rest purely in our hearts.